Verses 1-4 start off chapter 1 with a nice salutation, in which the grace of God is emphasized.

Verses 5-11 inform us about the necessity of works, and they warn us against being "unfruitful," in reference to John 15:5-8, and other verses. The passage also reminds us that we were "purified" from our "former sins," most probably in reference to the regenerative effect of baptism.

Verses 12-15 point out that the purpose of this Book is mostly just to remind us of important things -- we "already know them" -- not really to add anything new.

Verses 16-19 remind us of the fact that Peter witnessed all of this first-hand, and he is not just retelling old mythical tales, so he knows what he's talking about.

The final verses (verses 20-21) read: "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

This passage does two things. First, it reminds us that the Bible does not contradict itself on and is infallible on matters of faith and morals, because its writers, "moved by the Holy Spirit", "spoke from God." Second, the passage undermines individual interpretation, the cornerstone of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, implicitly reminding us of the necessity of being united under one set of doctrines.

Chapter 2 heavily warns against sin.

Verses 1-3, especially, remind me of the times we currently live in. Particularly, "[m]any will follow their sensuality" reminds me of society and debates around same-sex "marriage."

There is a lot of valuable material in this chapter. It informs us that we will be punished for sin that we do not repent of. Verse 13 tells us that we will "[suffer] wrong as the wages of doing wrong."

This is all completely contrary to the "Jesus died for all of our sins, so we're good!" view that many Protestants hold. Yes, it is through Christ that we can be cleansed from sin, but the cleansing is not automatic -- we must seek it.

Another interesting thing in the chapter is verse 20, which reads: "For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first."

This verse obliterates the Protestant idea -- held only by a minority, fortunately -- of "once saved, always saved." The people being referenced already had "knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" and "escaped the defilements of the world", so they were supposedly "saved" at one point (at least, according to common Protestant doctrine), but then they lost their salvation after getting "entangled" in these "defilements of the world."

And the next verse -- verse 21 -- reads: "For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them."

This verse and the previous verse tie in with the Catholic idea of salvation through "invincible ignorance." Basically, anyone genuinely ignorant of Christian teaching can reach salvation. Like this verse says, for some people, "it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness."

The chapter closes with a proverb.

Verses 1 and 2 of chapter 3 again remind us of the fact that this Book is in continuity with the rest of the Bible, simply a reminder of important details.

Verses 3-9 touch on people doubting the eventual return of Christ. The passage tells us that the reason that it seems to be taking so long to occur is that Christ is trying to lead as many souls to salvation as possible before then.

And verses 10-18, the final verses, urge us to always "be in holy conduct and godliness" and "be diligent to be found by Him [God] in peace, spotless and blameless." The passage tells us that "the patience of our Lord" allows more people to attain salvation. It also tells us that there are "some things hard to understand" in Paul's writings (like supposed "faith alone" verses, perhaps?), "which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Feel free to check out my other videos and other past work. Like 2 Peter 3:18 tells us, we must "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." May God bless you.

“Second, the passage undermines individual interpretation, the cornerstone of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, implicitly reminding us of the necessity of being united under one set of doctrines. “

So interpretation by one man is bad, but interpretation by another is good?

2
posted on 09/25/2013 6:21:27 AM PDT
by driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)

I read it, I’m an unapologetic, sold-out, born-again evangelical non-Catholic Christian, and I don’t have any trouble with any of it. I guess I felt the need to say so, since the name of the blog is “Answering Protestants”.

3
posted on 09/25/2013 6:22:25 AM PDT
by jagusafr
(the American Trinity (Liberty, In G0D We Trust, E Pluribus Unum))

Yeah, I get it, we could just throw darts at scripture and pick and choose what we want that way. That’d work well. Of course, man removed from the time of Christ by 1900 years leaving out some books of Scripture can understand it. (/sarc)

Second, the passage undermines individual interpretation, the cornerstone of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, implicitly reminding us of the necessity of being united under one set of doctrines. 

So interpretation by one man is bad, but interpretation by another is good?

Let me rephrase it for you. Exactly how may verse in the Bible has the Catholic Church definitively interpreted?

Protestants have a habit of saying that the Church has mandated specific interpretations. Surely the protestant community can tell me how many verses the Church has said you must follow their interpretation.

Except of course God did “found a book” but it wasn’t really a book. The bible IS the inerrant inspired Word of God. Your statement indicated you didn’t think God did “found a book” which of course in the Bible in this context.

The Word of God does instruct us to be wary of false teachers.

19
posted on 09/25/2013 8:18:23 AM PDT
by driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)

Not being Catholic ... if you tell me the RCC hasn't interpreted EVERY verse then that is good enough for me ... I believe you.

Having said that ... where is the databank of official verses they HAVE interpreted?

And personally, if you are going to claim authority over the interpretation of scripture ... why WOULDN'T that include all of it.

The Catholic Church has chosen to definitely interpret about a dozen verses. Now that does not mean that those verse can't have other interpretations. It means that we can't interpret them in direct opposition to the Church's.

The reason that the Church has not definitely interpreted every single verse is that the Bible is rich with depth and meaning. And different people can take different things from the Bible on a given day. I know myself that there have been days when I will read a verse and see something a week later I might take something else from it. This site has a list of the verses that have been definitively interpreted: http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-verses-defined-by-catholic-church.html

Actually the thirty volume commentary of Cornelius a'Lapide comments on each and every verse in the Bible and has the Impimatur of the Church.

So there is in effect an authoritative interpretation of each verse in the Bible.

Now, that doesn't include the single verse taken out of context as if it's a stand alone doctrine in and of itself approach that I've seen and heard from non-Catholic authors and speakers who ignore context whenever it suits their agenda, but it is complete.

So thedre is indeed an authoritative interpretation of each verse, in context, as the verse relates to the context it's in as well as to other Scripture when there is an important connection to other Scripture as well as to the immediate context.

32
posted on 09/25/2013 12:30:11 PM PDT
by Rashputin
(Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)

The Catholic Church has chosen to definitely interpret about a dozen verses. Now that does not mean that those verse can't have other interpretations. It means that we can't interpret them in direct opposition to the Church's. The reason that the Church has not definitely interpreted every single verse is that the Bible is rich with depth and meaning.

...the thirty volume commentary of Cornelius a'Lapide comments on each and every verse in the Bible and has the Impimatur of the Church. So there is in effect an authoritative interpretation of each verse in the Bible....So thedre is indeed an authoritative interpretation of each verse, in context, as the verse relates to the context it's in as well as to other Scripture when there is an important connection to other Scripture as well as to the immediate context.

Interesting. In my thirteen+ years on FR, this is the first time that I've ever heard of this.

So Cornelius a'Lapide writes a massive volume ... including his commentary on most of scripture ... which by default must certainly contain his own interpretation of scripture ... but when I comment on why such-and-such a verse is being misused under the normal rules of the grammatical historical approach ... I am using my own private interpretation of scripture?

The Catholic Church has chosen to definitely interpret about a dozen verses. Now that does not mean that those verse can't have other interpretations. It means that we can't interpret them in direct opposition to the Church's. A dozen? And you consider that sufficient?

The reason that the Church has not definitely interpreted every single verse is that the Bible is rich with depth and meaning. And different people can take different things from the Bible on a given day.

The Pope asked him to do it and assigned people to ensure known references, connections, and usage were taken to account.

Chapters were reviewed as they were completed looking for problems, and making sure past Hebrew past usage in earlier approved writings were taken into account in the Latin commentary. a'Lapide was the Hebrew scholar of his day and prior Jewish interpretation was very important to him.

Everything was reviewed and approved by proper Church authorities which in and of itself makes sure it's not "his private interpretation".

40
posted on 09/25/2013 1:36:29 PM PDT
by Rashputin
(Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)

The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error. It is not implied that those who have granted the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions, or statements expressed. This applies only after precensorship; it is not specifically applied to the permission of a major religious superior. [Source: Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia Revised and Updated (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), p. 288.]

50
posted on 09/25/2013 9:43:25 PM PDT
by boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.